Looking up silentstorm and hearthstone doesn’t yield anything on google or youtube, nothing on the front pages anyway.
It’s possible it got buried or deleted. Most totalitarian regimes do not want information out there that may compromise or question their Rule. Fortunately, that was but one criteria of proof I offered. There is a SilentStorm post in Community Discussion regarding the Hearthstone Algorithm, which isn’t specifically about proving rigging but moreso an exploration of how the Algorithm of the game functions, if you’re interested in learning more about it.
yeah you’re definitely SuperCuddles
and delusional
2 Likes
Now google is in on the action!
And if google is in on it, you just know FB is as well.
Before you know it, we’ll end up down an endless chain of sources and end up at your next door neighbor’s pet goldfish as the real culprit!
1 Like
Idk man, I’m just tired of everyone acting like they are part of the last line of resistance against an evil group that is on the verge of transforming the world/nation into a totalitarian dictatorship. You aren’t in V for Vendetta, crazy people, snap out of it. This isn’t late stage capitalism, capitalism hasn’t even revealed its final form yet, we’re far from the end.
They’d just call it fake anyway
3 Likes
I admit they are definitely a part of my life, for better or for worse, in sickness and in health. And you are most certainly ScrotieMclovin, Mr. Supercuddles says they have a love/hate relationship with you btw
Social capitalism
Everyone has equal opportunity. Those in need get help from those who can afford it. People hold most of the power. Corporations lose power, because majority of GDP-s will be produced by SME-s (Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises).
They got closer than they have ever come in the late 19th and early 20th century until the trust busters stepped in and delayed them for a few decades.
A streamer saying “proof” doesn’t mean they understand the meaning of the word. Usually they will describe what they believe in based on their limited sample and biased opinion.
Even if they are right it’s not proof.
That puts you together with them in believing things without proof. The code of the game is a black box and there are incentives for companies to do shady stuff.
The wise course of action is only agnosticism unless you work for Blizzard and you have reviewed the code.
I have explained multiple times in the past why that’s wrong; you don’t get it; I guess I’ll type it again for others who get statistical logic a bit better.
The third parties do not have any information whatsoever on the relation of the company with the players (they only know their own accounts).
Since the variation within individual accounts is all over the place they are unable to judge if the sum is right but the indivuals doctored.
This isn’t necessary. I do not need to know this information if I can demonstrate that no one is receiving preferential treatment.
If no one was receiving preferential treatment, what the data would look like is just one big bell curve. If one group was receiving preferential treatment, what random data would look like is two different bell curves, one big one and one smaller one, offset so that their average winrates are centered on different points, combined together. If a normal bell curve is a one hump camel, the graph of the data under rigging would be a two-hump camel. This is the thing that YOU aren’t getting.
If there is only one hump then there is only one class in regards to algorithmic treatment.
No and I explained why so I guess I have to repeat in the form of a question. The variance of win rates within individual players (of any rank) is extremely high; i.e. some of them may have 55% and others 65% and others 75% for the exact same rank; that ALREADY creates massively different “bell curves” (gaussian distributions) ANYWAY without any rigging.
Question: since you know nothing about individual players’ relation to the company and since there is already massive variance of individual win rates in the same rank: how do you know if some of the “more winners in the same rank” didn’t get preferential treatment (and the inverse for the “more losers” which would keep the sum even)?
Absolutely not. Delusional.
Y’know what, let’s maybe try to get on the same page a little less aggressively.
There is no need to consider rank, at all, assuming that our data set starts at the first of a month (it should be from month start to month end). Rank is itself a function of winrate; high winrate is high rank, low winrate is low rank, for the most part.
The way we’d analyze the data is: we’d create a list of unique accounts that have played at least N games; I’d suggest N=25. We’d construct a table of the wins and losses for each account; from this we’d calculate a winrate for each. We’d make N buckets of winrate (if N=25 then 0.48≥w>0.52 would be a bucket). Then we’d count the number of accounts in each winrate bucket and that would be our bell curve.
Tell me your education failed you without telling me education failed you.
You have the burden of proof to show the game is rigged, not the other way around. You can’t really prove a negative, only that no evidence has been shown to the contrary.
As in until you show us evidence that contradicts blizzard, they’re telling us the truth. If it’s as rigged as you say, that proof should be easy to find… but no one has managed to do it unless you have something we don’t.
I actually want someone to show the proof. I would love the hilarity that would ensue if someone showed that matching was in fact rigged. I feel all these rigged people and I would love to be one of them, but I can’t because they’re not bringing me any reason to side with them.
This is a pretty interesting idea, though.
If it was really rigged like some want to believe, they would just adjust the match rigging to tame decks that are over performing… like actually give them more “counters.”
2 Likes
But the burden is on you to explain how there is an incentive to do this shady thing, in particular, that somehow is also easily identifiable to the parade of whiners yet wholly invisible to all data analysis.
If you really, truly believe that an entertainment company is lying to you about cheating you out of wins so that you feel bad, why haven’t you quit yet?
1 Like
So when you had players matched by rank alone (no stars) there were likely very different win rates for players at the same ranks.
But now that we match by MMR, those swings aren’t like you think they are. Games are pretty much the same all the time. It’s likely why people who make bad homebrews are mad… their MMR is still sorting to bad homebrew level and they are hard stuck.
Because why? Because making players lose on purpose or hard sticking them in a rank band doesn’t improve profits and takes resources.
The company wouldn’t pay someone to maintain and curate buckets in duels, instead making them expansion based, is paying a team to maintain this unnecessarily complex matching system that doesn’t do anything but piss players off?
Occums razor says it’s just wins and losses and off you go.